Case Number: BC653531 Hearing Date: June 06, 2018 Dept: 32

LAURA SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORAD BEN NEMAN,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC653531

Hearing Date: June 6, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO MBN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO MBN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC’S FORM INTERROGATORIES

MOTION DEEMING MBN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

BACKGROUND

This action is brought by seventy-five individual Plaintiffs against eighteen Defendants related to a property located on East Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege claims arising out of the warranty of habitability, negligence, and various statutory violations.

DISCUSSION

Defendant MBN Real Estate Investments, LLC (“MBN”) moves to compel Plaintiffs to provide responses to written discovery. Given that there are seventy-five individual Plaintiffs in this action, the Court granted Sky High’s ex parte application to file consolidated motions as to all Plaintiffs against whom a discovery order is sought. (June 30, 2017 Order; Klein Decl. Exh. A.)

Special Interrogatories and Form Interrogatories

When timely responses to interrogatories are not received, “[t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (CCP § 2030.290(b).)

As set forth in the motion, MBN served special interrogatories, set one on Plaintiffs on October 25, 2017 by personal service. (Klein Decl. ¶4, Exh.B.) MBN also served form interrogatories, set one on Plaintiffs on October 25, 2017 by personal service. (Klein Decl. ¶4, Exh.B.) The responses were due by November 27, 2017. (CCP §2030.260(a).) As of March 23, 2018 Plaintiffs have failed to provide any responses to the interrogatories.

The motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiffs to provide responses without objections within 15 days of receiving notice of this ruling.

Requests for Admission

If a party fails to provide a timely response to a request for admission, the party waives any objection to the requests. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) Moreover, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction….” (CCP § 2033.280(b).) Generally, the Court must grant such a request “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

As set forth in the motion, MBN served requests for admissions, set one on Plaintiffs on October 25, 2017 by personal service. (Klein Decl. ¶4, Exh.B.) The responses were due by November 27, 2017 due to the Thanksgiving holiday. (CCP §2030.260(a).) As of March 23, 2018, Plaintiffs have failed to provide any responses to the requests for admissions. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion to make a showing that they have served responses that are in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.

As such, these RFAs are deemed admitted against these Plaintiffs.

Sanctions

MBN seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel of record for the motion to compel RFAs, RFPs, and FIs in the amounts of $1,980, $2,300 and $2,300 respectively ($320/hour plus costs) for a total of $6,580. The motions are largely duplicative of each other. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $2,480. Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, Law Firm of Harold Greenberg, to pay total monetary sanctions, jointly and severally, to MBN’s counsel of record, Fisher & Wolfe LLP, within 30 days of receiving notice of this ruling.